Kevin Goldstein over at Baseball Prosectus published his list of the Top 100 Prospects (subscription required) and there is great news for Sox fans. The Red Sox have the most prospects on the list with seven (the Rays and Braves were second with six; the Yankees had five). They also have a nice mix of high and low ranked, which indicates talent is dispersed throughout the various levels of the minor league system and will likely pay dividends over time. It is also heartening to see a healthy mix of positions. The Sox boast three pitchers (Buchholz, Masterson, and Bowden), two centerfielders (Ellsbury and Kalish), a shortstop (Lowrie) and a first basemen (Anderson).
I found the high ranking of Kalish (#60) a bit surprising. His performance last year at such a young age was clearly worthy of note. Scouts and quants alike love this kid. But, given that Oscar Tejeda, who did not make the list, arguably had a better offensive season (Kalish is supposed to be an outstanding defender, which I've not yet heard about Tejeda) and that Kalish had limited at-bats all in low-A, I expected Goldstein's enthusiasm to be more tempered (see, for example, Lars Anderson's ranking at #100).
If the list is any indiciation, the Rays may still have the best system as they have six prospects but five of those prospects are in the top 25.
Finally, these rankings tell us something about the Johan Santana trade. The Mets traded Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra. Both Gomez and Guerra made the list (Humber and Mulvey were likely ineligible but I doubt either would have made the list) but were ranked 65 and 79 respectively. If you look at some of the offers made by the Red Sox and Yankees, you realize how little the Twins received in return for Santana. Twins fans should be apoplectic that so much high level talent was on the table at one point yet they ended up with so little.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Kenyan Troubles and the Western Response
I thought I'd add a quick note on the on-going troubles in Kenya. Admittedly, I'm no expert on African politics but the degrading social and political situation in Kenya is tragic. For decades, Kenya has been one of Africa's greatest successes and cause for hope. Kenya was relatively prosperous and peaceful (although there has always been strife among competing ethnic groups). Kenya has also been an economic and political ally of the West, to the point of making it a target for antiwestern terrorist groups.
Yet, the fallout of a contested election in December that saw President Mwai Kibaki hold power in the midst of widespread claims of electoral tampering has set off violence that is only growing. Earlier in the week, Melitus Mugabe Were, an opposition leader who sought to quell the growing unrest, was seemingly assassinated in front of his house. Another member of the opposition party was shot and killed on Thursday although the details are still a bit unclear. Each murder has spawned riots across Kenya.
Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan is in Kenya attempting to broker peace between the factions. The New York Times reports that current Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will head there tomorrow. But more needs to be done in the West. Too often, the United States sits on its hands as African nations degrade into chaos rather than attempting to aid them when aid is still possible. The United States is not a panacea but if President Bush is looking toward his legacy, aiding an ally in their time of need is a legacy good enough for any president.
Yet, the fallout of a contested election in December that saw President Mwai Kibaki hold power in the midst of widespread claims of electoral tampering has set off violence that is only growing. Earlier in the week, Melitus Mugabe Were, an opposition leader who sought to quell the growing unrest, was seemingly assassinated in front of his house. Another member of the opposition party was shot and killed on Thursday although the details are still a bit unclear. Each murder has spawned riots across Kenya.
Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan is in Kenya attempting to broker peace between the factions. The New York Times reports that current Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will head there tomorrow. But more needs to be done in the West. Too often, the United States sits on its hands as African nations degrade into chaos rather than attempting to aid them when aid is still possible. The United States is not a panacea but if President Bush is looking toward his legacy, aiding an ally in their time of need is a legacy good enough for any president.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Santana and the Value of Young Talent
The New York Mets landed Johan Santana (assuming that they can work out a contract over the next several days). Given that I hoped for this outcome (see my post from 1/28), I am quite pleased. Yet, the deal that brings Santana to the Mets is quite stunning in one way: the Mets gave up very little to land the best left handed starting pitcher in the game. There can be little doubt that Minnesota Twins GM Bill Smith miscalculated, thinking that he could create a bidding war between the Red Sox, Yankees, and the Mets that would land the Twins top flight pitching prospects and everyday players. However, when the Sox and Yankees refused to put more on the table following the Winter Meetings, the market for Santana seemed to shrink rapidly to the point where the Mets were able to get Santana for fairly marginal prospects.
The Santana escapade seems to signal the rise of a new era in baseball operations, a paradigm shift, if you will: a reassessed value for prospects relative to proven talent. Once upon a time in baseball, you would hear the following (fairly convincing) argument: Unproven talent is unproven and you should trade unproven talent for proven talent when the opportunity presents itself. There were exceptions of course but teams with larger payrolls were willing to use their minor league talent to land major league talent and open up the checkbook to pay the salaries.
What the Red Sox and Yankees did (and they are by no means the first teams to do so) was show a willingness to stick with the possibility that the talent within their minor league systems will prove more valuable to the franchise than landing the likes of Johan Santana. Santana costs his sizable salary plus the cost of losing cost-controlled players (i.e. the developing talent controlled by a team for six years once placed on the MLB roster). Santana should prove extremely productive to the Mets but the question for teams like the Sox and Yankees was whether Santana's value outweighed the cost of losing the talent and financial advantage of players like Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Phil Hughes, or Melky Cabrera. Such analysis is difficult at best but, much in the way baseball sees fewer and fewer ace pitchers hitting the free market, we may see fewer and fewer teams willing to swap highly regarded, young, affordable talent--even among the teams that can afford high priced talent--for more established big leaguers. This may be a story of economics; it may be a story of finding better means of predicting success for minor leaguers at the major league level; it may just be another "Moneyball" shift in the marketplace. But whatever the case, for tonight, I don't care. I'm buying an Ellsbury jersey.
The Santana escapade seems to signal the rise of a new era in baseball operations, a paradigm shift, if you will: a reassessed value for prospects relative to proven talent. Once upon a time in baseball, you would hear the following (fairly convincing) argument: Unproven talent is unproven and you should trade unproven talent for proven talent when the opportunity presents itself. There were exceptions of course but teams with larger payrolls were willing to use their minor league talent to land major league talent and open up the checkbook to pay the salaries.
What the Red Sox and Yankees did (and they are by no means the first teams to do so) was show a willingness to stick with the possibility that the talent within their minor league systems will prove more valuable to the franchise than landing the likes of Johan Santana. Santana costs his sizable salary plus the cost of losing cost-controlled players (i.e. the developing talent controlled by a team for six years once placed on the MLB roster). Santana should prove extremely productive to the Mets but the question for teams like the Sox and Yankees was whether Santana's value outweighed the cost of losing the talent and financial advantage of players like Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Phil Hughes, or Melky Cabrera. Such analysis is difficult at best but, much in the way baseball sees fewer and fewer ace pitchers hitting the free market, we may see fewer and fewer teams willing to swap highly regarded, young, affordable talent--even among the teams that can afford high priced talent--for more established big leaguers. This may be a story of economics; it may be a story of finding better means of predicting success for minor leaguers at the major league level; it may just be another "Moneyball" shift in the marketplace. But whatever the case, for tonight, I don't care. I'm buying an Ellsbury jersey.
Monday, January 28, 2008
We the People Enjoy the Irony (at least this Person does)
President Bush concluded his final State of the Union address by contrasting the Articles of Confederation opening reference to "We the undersigned delegates of the States" with the Constitution's "We the People". Bush used the change as a call to arms to do the People's business--always a useful reminder whenever there is a lame duck president and the opposition party controls Congress. However, as is so often the case, Bush seems to have missed the point. "We the People" had everything to do with undermining the authority of the existing state-dominated regime by creating direct appeals to the sovereign people and, in so doing, undercutting the authority of state legislatures. Ratification was to be done by state conventions, not by state legislatures. I have no problem with the occasional rhetorical flourish but there is a certain irony in a president who campaigned for the White House as a strong federalism (i.e. states-rights) conservative invoking, in what is likely the last major speech of his presidency, one of the original mechanisms used to overcome the authority of states.
Starting Fresh
Without intending to do so, I committed the sin that befalls so many blogs: I stopped posting. Unfortunately, this cost me my only reader but I trust that I can win her back with a return to regular posting. (Right, Amy?) And, since we are only one week away from Super Tuesday and two weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting to spring training, it is the perfect time to get The Foul Pole back up and running. To that end...
Baseball: First, congratulations to the 2007 World Series Champion Red Sox. Much has been made of this and I don't need to comment further other than to say that, in a world that is sometimes trying, it is an utter and total delight to watch the team that you love win the World Series. And, yes, it was as sweet as 2004, if only a different kind of sweetness.
Second, I will add a few words regarding Johan Santana despite so much ink already being dedicated to that subject (the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that Santana will be on the move within the next ten days). There have been a number of rumors that the Red Sox were the front runners for Santana; then the Yankees; now the Mets. Do I want the Sox to land Santana? Yes. But not as much as I want the Yankees not to land Santana. (The Sox have a major advantage in starting pitching to start the season--Tom Verducci has a nice article on this edge--but adding Santana to the mix would level out the balance such that it would not be difficult to argue that the Spanks are the better team.) The package of players the Sox have offered is impressive and costly. There are two packages: one centered on Jacoby Ellsbury (along with Justin Masterson, Jed Lowrie, and according to some sources, Ryan Kalish) and one with Jon Lester (including Coco Crisp, Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish). With either deal, the price of acquiring Santana is quite high. The Twins would reap major benefits in developing talent with the added benefit of cost control. In turn, the Sox would have the most dominant left handed pitcher in the game and a rotation that would--assuming average health--dominate the AL East for the next three to four years (potentially much longer).
Despite the degree to which the Sox would benefit from acquiring Santana, I would be quite happy to see Santana go to the Mets. Why? Because I love the young talent in the Sox system and would like to see many of the players mentioned above in Sox laundry someday. Ellsbury demonstrated his significant potential during September and October of 2007. Lester's maturity--on and off the field--along with his talent speaks to why pitching coach John Ferrell thinks he will turn into a consistent 15-17 game winner. Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish had extremely impressive seasons in the minors. In terms of on-field production, these are not good enough reasons not to make the trade with the Twins should they want it and that is why good ol' cold, hard logic convinces me that the Sox should pull the trigger. However, my heart isn't so cold and I want to cheer for these guys in the years to come. I want to give a friend of mine a Red Sox "Ellsbury" jersey even if its only because she thinks he hunky. I want to skip out of work early the day the Sox call up Masterson to start the front half of a day-night doubeheader. I want an excuse to visit my friend in Portland when Kalish gets promoted to the Sea Dogs. These aren't good baseball-operation reasons, but, as a fan, you can't help but hope that certain deals don't happen.
Third: Despite the fact that the Sox are arguably better going into 2008 than 2007, look for the Detroit Tigers to be the dominant "expert's pre-season World Series pick". They added pitching and offense (though not defense) and look to be pretty darn good soup to nuts. The AL Central is going to be stacked this year given the improvements by Chicago and Cleveland's ascendence last year.
Fourth: He That Shall Not Be Named got his during the off-season. He was unconvincing on 60 Minutes. He was unconvincing on his taped phone conversation. He tells an unconvincing story as to why Brian McNamee would lie. He is as unsavory as ever and has become our generation's Pete Rose (a great talent that ruined his legacy and will never recover). The only person walking away from this story that looks good is Dan Duquette...and that says something about this story.
Politics: I'll write more as we progress towards Super Tuesday but the Democratic Party needs to have a long debate over whether Clintonian politics is worth while. There seem to be very profound reasons to both admire and revile the Clinton Way. Matt Bai had an outstanding article in the New York Times Magazine back in December that detailed the nature of Clintonian politics and its uncertain legacy. However, the debate over whether the Party is really prepared to accept this unique (and somewhat successful) form of politics speaks to the nature of Party itself. It may be that Democrats don't want the more congenial politics that Barack Obama regularly references in his speeches. It may be that Democrats like winning in a way that only (Bill) Clinton was able to do with any consistency (at least since Lyndon Johnson). Yet, the costs are notable too. The Clinton years were marred by scandal and the failure to achieve all that could be achieved. Unfortunately, this legacy follows Hillary and to ignore it--or hope that it will not happen--does the Democratic Party no favors.
More soon...
Baseball: First, congratulations to the 2007 World Series Champion Red Sox. Much has been made of this and I don't need to comment further other than to say that, in a world that is sometimes trying, it is an utter and total delight to watch the team that you love win the World Series. And, yes, it was as sweet as 2004, if only a different kind of sweetness.
Second, I will add a few words regarding Johan Santana despite so much ink already being dedicated to that subject (the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that Santana will be on the move within the next ten days). There have been a number of rumors that the Red Sox were the front runners for Santana; then the Yankees; now the Mets. Do I want the Sox to land Santana? Yes. But not as much as I want the Yankees not to land Santana. (The Sox have a major advantage in starting pitching to start the season--Tom Verducci has a nice article on this edge--but adding Santana to the mix would level out the balance such that it would not be difficult to argue that the Spanks are the better team.) The package of players the Sox have offered is impressive and costly. There are two packages: one centered on Jacoby Ellsbury (along with Justin Masterson, Jed Lowrie, and according to some sources, Ryan Kalish) and one with Jon Lester (including Coco Crisp, Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish). With either deal, the price of acquiring Santana is quite high. The Twins would reap major benefits in developing talent with the added benefit of cost control. In turn, the Sox would have the most dominant left handed pitcher in the game and a rotation that would--assuming average health--dominate the AL East for the next three to four years (potentially much longer).
Despite the degree to which the Sox would benefit from acquiring Santana, I would be quite happy to see Santana go to the Mets. Why? Because I love the young talent in the Sox system and would like to see many of the players mentioned above in Sox laundry someday. Ellsbury demonstrated his significant potential during September and October of 2007. Lester's maturity--on and off the field--along with his talent speaks to why pitching coach John Ferrell thinks he will turn into a consistent 15-17 game winner. Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish had extremely impressive seasons in the minors. In terms of on-field production, these are not good enough reasons not to make the trade with the Twins should they want it and that is why good ol' cold, hard logic convinces me that the Sox should pull the trigger. However, my heart isn't so cold and I want to cheer for these guys in the years to come. I want to give a friend of mine a Red Sox "Ellsbury" jersey even if its only because she thinks he hunky. I want to skip out of work early the day the Sox call up Masterson to start the front half of a day-night doubeheader. I want an excuse to visit my friend in Portland when Kalish gets promoted to the Sea Dogs. These aren't good baseball-operation reasons, but, as a fan, you can't help but hope that certain deals don't happen.
Third: Despite the fact that the Sox are arguably better going into 2008 than 2007, look for the Detroit Tigers to be the dominant "expert's pre-season World Series pick". They added pitching and offense (though not defense) and look to be pretty darn good soup to nuts. The AL Central is going to be stacked this year given the improvements by Chicago and Cleveland's ascendence last year.
Fourth: He That Shall Not Be Named got his during the off-season. He was unconvincing on 60 Minutes. He was unconvincing on his taped phone conversation. He tells an unconvincing story as to why Brian McNamee would lie. He is as unsavory as ever and has become our generation's Pete Rose (a great talent that ruined his legacy and will never recover). The only person walking away from this story that looks good is Dan Duquette...and that says something about this story.
Politics: I'll write more as we progress towards Super Tuesday but the Democratic Party needs to have a long debate over whether Clintonian politics is worth while. There seem to be very profound reasons to both admire and revile the Clinton Way. Matt Bai had an outstanding article in the New York Times Magazine back in December that detailed the nature of Clintonian politics and its uncertain legacy. However, the debate over whether the Party is really prepared to accept this unique (and somewhat successful) form of politics speaks to the nature of Party itself. It may be that Democrats don't want the more congenial politics that Barack Obama regularly references in his speeches. It may be that Democrats like winning in a way that only (Bill) Clinton was able to do with any consistency (at least since Lyndon Johnson). Yet, the costs are notable too. The Clinton years were marred by scandal and the failure to achieve all that could be achieved. Unfortunately, this legacy follows Hillary and to ignore it--or hope that it will not happen--does the Democratic Party no favors.
More soon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)